File Sharing Continued...

This thought occured to me...
Turn of the century musicians were very upset with the new technology of sound recording. Their argument, and rightfully so, was that if you could buy recorded music then there would be no market for live music. See back in the day, if you wanted music you either had to play it yourself or hire a musician or band to play music for you.
Now many of these musicians tried in vain to fight the advent of recording music. Many refused to participate. Some embraced the technology and realized a new way of creating capital. Those that did not embrace it were soon left in the dust and forgotten by history. Where once there was nothing suddenlly there was an entire recording industry and a new means of creating capital from music.
I feel we are at a very similar turning point.
Those who embrace the technology and make it work for them will be the victors in this battle. Those who try to fight it will be left in the wake.

Also I didn't get any feedback on the used CD thing. If i purchase a CD and make copies for my personal use as described by law. When I sell the CD to say a used CD store am I obliged to destroy the copies? What are your feelings on used sales in general?
Peace and respect

"Their legislation, introduced Wednesday, would punish an Internet user who shares even a single file without permission from a copyright holder with prison terms of up to five years and fines of up to $250,000."

Click to expand...

And to think I've been a life long demie... Oi
Yeah let's put our fan base in prison!

I, for one am one who buys all his music at used CD stores. All the money payed for an album goes to the person who sold it to the record store, and the shop itself. Though I am paying for the music, this is not much further from the same effect to the record industry created by file sharing (i.e. they are making no money off of me personally).

I don't feel guilty for download an mp3, just as I dont feel guilty buying a used CD, and neither the artist or record company profit from either of those.

I have never heard much about it, does the recording industry openly support buying used music as a replacement to filesharing?

Used CD stores don't really come into play here. The product has already been paid for. (most of the time) The industry can't charge you twice.

There was a news clip on Fox this morning that said legal action has been taken against many fileshare users. Something around 800 users.

Now I disagree with going after the user. I still think that free/unregulated distribution with no compensation for the owner of the music is wrong, but I think that the system needs to be revamped. ie: Make it so people have to pay a supscription or per download fee. That way, the musicians see some scratch. You pay for any other service? Right?

I am not against the technology. I think it is incredible. It has the potential to change alot. In fact, I plan to get an iPod soon. I just don't like the "free-for-all" sharing has become.

And as for my iPod, I plan to use it to digitize my 3000+ CDs.(90% that I paid for, thank you) I travel alot and the CDs tend to get scratched. The iPod would also lighten my load.

Originally posted by Davehenning I am not against the technology. I think it is incredible. It has the potential to change alot. In fact, I plan to get an iPod soon. I just don't like the "free-for-all" sharing has become.

Click to expand...

This got me wondering something. Let's just say that "they" figure a way to prevent free downloads/sharing/whatever---will the quality of new music begin to improve? I'm coming from the camp of "There's nothing worth stealing". (FWIW, I've never downloaded songs; my small Miles Davis and Sabbath collection keep me satisfied).

And as for my iPod, I plan to use it to digitize my 3000+ CDs.(90% that I paid for, thank you) I travel alot and the CDs tend to get scratched. The iPod would also lighten my load.

Click to expand...

In the not-to-distant future when "ipods" are cheap do you think people will be selling them loaded with thousands of albums? Five years from now will I be able to pick one up off ebay for $100? With the equivalent of a big record store inventory?

Nobody's really addressed mcbassdude's initial comment about when recording first came about. I think that's a great point. I can imagine everyone panicking and saying "how am I going to make money if people only have to buy my recording...? It's as if they can have me play live for free whenever they want! I'm ruined!" And for a while that logic held, but once mass production became available it obviously changed how musicians made money and in fact helped them become even richer and helped music ultimately through increased distribution. But the musicians at the time couldn't have possibly foreseen mass productions of recordings and how they would come to make money off of music.

I think a similar revolution is happening with downloads. It's just so early in the revolution that no one can foresee how musicians will make money...I have faith in capitalism to sort things out. Necessity is the mother of invention and all that...

Originally posted by szvonek Nobody's really addressed mcbassdude's initial comment about when recording first came about. I think that's a great point. I can imagine everyone panicking and saying "how am I going to make money if people only have to buy my recording...? It's as if they can have me play live for free whenever they want! I'm ruined!" And for a while that logic held, but once mass production became available it obviously changed how musicians made money and in fact helped them become even richer and helped music ultimately through increased distribution. But the musicians at the time couldn't have possibly foreseen mass productions of recordings and how they would come to make money off of music.

I think a similar revolution is happening with downloads. It's just so early in the revolution that no one can foresee how musicians will make money...I have faith in capitalism to sort things out. Necessity is the mother of invention and all that...

Click to expand...

I think if you look through history those that re-tool, re-think when a new technology is introduced are the ones that rise to the top. The ones who try to hang onto the old ways and ideas are almost always left in the dust.

Another point on the used CD thing. Only the CD's original purchase will generate income for the artist. All other used sales do not generate income for the artist, yet money is being made. Every used sale is one less sale for the artist. Say I buy a used CD, copy it and sell it back to the store. Someone else does the same and so on and so on. The artist only made his cut of the original 17.99 all subsequent sales result in no profit from the recording for the artist. In essence file sharing except here someone is making money and not giving the artist a cut of the profit. SO I "Paid" for it but the artist see's no part of it. This seems to be far more aggrieving yet far more accepted than P2P where no money is exchanged.

The RIAA totally ruined this whole file sharing deal. They really are greedy wortless piles of scum who care of nothing other than money.

They should've just worked out a deal with internet providers and Napster, or other download programs. Make it so that a small fee is added to the monthly bill, be it 5 dollars, 10 dollars, etc extra per month, and you'd be allowed to download a set number of songs. Say 200 or so for 5 dollars extra per month.

It would be a lot better than the moronic ideas they've been coming up with. Honestly

Originally posted by mcbassdude Where once there was nothing suddenlly there was an entire recording industry and a new means of creating capital from music.
I feel we are at a very similar turning point.
Those who embrace the technology and make it work for them will be the victors in this battle. Those who try to fight it will be left in the wake.

Click to expand...

True, this created a new industry which employed folks. File sharing isn't creating anything, it is sucking the life out of an existing industry. A simular situation happened to me a 20 years ago here in WV when DJ's became popular. Where once there was jobs for a working band, 1 person with a turntable and trunk full of records replaced them. The so-called "Musicians Union" did absolutely nothing about it. The Union is pretty much nul and void now and working bands are making less money now then when the DJ's started working. The recording industry loved it though. The DJ's bought their CD's and promoted their products. Trouble is, now the DJ's are downloading everything and buying nothing. I saw a guy the other day doing his whole thing with 2 laptops. He told me he had downloaded his entire collections.

I think its wrong the RIAA is going after everyone. Its just the people who download mp3s flat out and have thousands of songs they havent paid for that are the problem. Me like lots of others here download one or two songs from and album and if i like what i here i will buy the cd, then everyone wins.

"In terms of file sharing, I think it poses the biggest threat to artists who release albums with only a couple of good songs on them. With albums like this, all you have to do is download the couple of songs and you have everything you want. If the album is more complete, people will go out and buy the album. I think people really will go out and buy their favorite music."

Here is a quote from Jaco Pastorius himself regarding people copying his records without paying. (I know this is pre-internet, but I think his stance applies.)I got it from www.jacop.net

"Everybody tells me, 'Hey man, I've got a tape of your album'.....Which is sort of a drag, because it's illegal to do that to begin with and because I receive absolutely no money from the people doing that. Maxell(tape manufacturer)makes all the bread, you know?"

Originally posted by mans0n I, for one am one who buys all his music at used CD stores. All the money payed for an album goes to the person who sold it to the record store, and the shop itself. Though I am paying for the music, this is not much further from the same effect to the record industry created by file sharing (i.e. they are making no money off of me personally).

I don't feel guilty for download an mp3, just as I dont feel guilty buying a used CD, and neither the artist or record company profit from either of those.

I have never heard much about it, does the recording industry openly support buying used music as a replacement to filesharing?

Click to expand...

I'm along the same lines - I don't like copied music, I like to own a genuine copy (you know what I mean!) of the album, either CD or vinyl.

However I'm slightly different in that I do download MP3s, the difference is that if I like a couple songs by an artist/group I will buy the CD (maybe several CDs). For example, my downloading 'Road to Nowhere' and 'Wild Wild Life' by Talking Heads led to me buying SEVEN of their albums After downloading four Voice of the Beehive songs, I bought their 'Best Of' album and 'Honey Lingers' (another album of theirs).

I think if you're prepared to download the music then, if you like it, you should be prepared to pay for it. I like to think of MP3s as 'Try before you buy' because at the same time I don't want to buy a whole CD to find out I don't like any of the tracks.

Used CD stores don't really come into play here. The product has already been paid for. (most of the time) The industry can't charge you twice.

Click to expand...

It is the same thing Dave. In fact the file you share originated on an original CD somewhere and was paid for once. The mp3 doesn't just magically appear. Somewhere there is an original CD(s) in a disc drive. The BIG difference is with used stores actual money is exchanging hands and profit is being made by others than the Artist and Label. It would be like if I sold you the file rather than shared it. The Used CD store is in essence a big ol' hard drive. You just have to drive to it and walk in. However the files/CD's are not free, you have to buy them and that money DOES NOT GO to the Artist or Label. This is what I just don't get. The used industry seems to be acceptable but in my eye is far more aggregeous as actual money is being made and not shared. With P2P the file sharer is NOT enriching his/her self financially.

So why is the RIAA suing 19 yr olds for 12big when in essence file sharing has been going on in used CD stores for over a decade. I buy a used CD, copy it at home and re-sell it to the store and so on and so on and so on.
In the past 10 years the majority of the CD's I have purchased have been used. NONE of the money I spent went to the Artist or Label, so explain to me the difference with P2P again? I mean why on earth would I pay 18.99 for a CD I can get for 8.99 used? AND I get all the printed stuff too. What would possibly compel me to buy it new? Especially when we all know that out of that 18.99 about 15 cents goes to the artist. I'd rather buy a concert ticket to support my fav artist.

So you see Dave, used and P2P are pretty much the same thing in the end run.

Unless the RIAA bans CD burners this is not the way they will solve their collective woes. Suing your market base is just not a wise idea. Is that what you really want to do as an artist? Sue the very people who dig your work?

If you want to buy used, then go for it. Buying a used cd or an LP is no big deal. I fail to see your logic. How is copying a CD the same as buying a used one? I buy used CDs myself.

A used CD store is not a big old hard drive.

Just because there is some original(paid for) file that may be able to be traced back 3000 copies on P2P doesnt mean sh*t. It does not justify copying.

I still stand by my original argument that putting up a collection of music for worldwide mass-distribution without the artist's consent is a HELL of a lot different than buying a used disc. Your argument does not hold water. P2P means you are making a copy. Not just for personal use, but for anyone who wants it, anywhere, anytime. (That is called bootlegging)

I will ask once more, why does no one make a subcription service for P2P???

God, you pay for any goods and services.......why is music different? NO ONE has been able to come up with a resonable argument for that yet.

I think that Used CD stores aren't such a worry to the RIAA because they still deal with the physical media. Sure, you can buy it, copy it and sell it back to the store at a small loss (and yes, I'm sure that could technically get you sued) but it only happens one person at a time.

So, somebody buys a brand new disk, copies it for themselves and sells it at the used store. The next person does the same and so on. Assuming it takes an average of a week for someone to buy the disk, get round to copying it and then return it to the store (and that's probably way too short in reality, especially once the disk is out of the charts), that would only be 52 illegal copies over the course of a year and only a fraction of those affecting the main bulk of the sales.

However, if the initial purchaser made an online copy available, they could keep the physical media (or sell it to the used CD store if they so wished) and hundreds or thousands or people could take digitally perfect copies during the next couple of weeks (including copies of copies of copies - digital = no degradation).

Sure, it's free promotion... but the gamble is that the percentage of people who buy the a physical copy of the album is more than enough to balance those who would have bought it but decide not to. It could work, and maybe would if the record companies issued slightly watermarked but listenable copies on the net while at the same time ruthlessly pursuing illegal file sharing, but they don't seem inclined to take the risk....

So, there's a huge difference in the impact of used CDs as compared to P2P sharing - I'm sure the record companies would love to see both go, but the latter (rightly so) is perceived as a far more significant threat (which could be a potential opportunity... but they aren't looking at it that way).

Originally posted by mcbassdude
This is what I just don't get. The used industry seems to be acceptable but in my eye is far more aggregeous as actual money is being made and not shared.

Click to expand...

It is easy to miss with all the press and soundbites the file sharing side of things is getting, but the RIAA is also seeking legislation to outlaw second hand music shops. They aren't making a lot of public noise about it like they are with the file sharing, but they are seeking to get rid of that "problem" as well. To us, second hand music shops are great, but to the RIAA they are stealing (as the RIAA isn't getting paid on that sale). They aren't making public noises about this effort, as it would be next to impossible for them to get public sympathy for this position (but it is indeed their stated position). Links can be dug up is needed...

Originally posted by wulf I think that Used CD stores aren't such a worry to the RIAA because they still deal with the physical media. Sure, you can buy it, copy it and sell it back to the store at a small loss (and yes, I'm sure that could technically get you sued) but it only happens one person at a time.

So, somebody buys a brand new disk, copies it for themselves and sells it at the used store. The next person does the same and so on. Assuming it takes an average of a week for someone to buy the disk, get round to copying it and then return it to the store (and that's probably way too short in reality, especially once the disk is out of the charts), that would only be 52 illegal copies over the course of a year and only a fraction of those affecting the main bulk of the sales.

However, if the initial purchaser made an online copy available, they could keep the physical media (or sell it to the used CD store if they so wished) and hundreds or thousands or people could take digitally perfect copies during the next couple of weeks (including copies of copies of copies - digital = no degradation).

Sure, it's free promotion... but the gamble is that the percentage of people who buy the a physical copy of the album is more than enough to balance those who would have bought it but decide not to. It could work, and maybe would if the record companies issued slightly watermarked but listenable copies on the net while at the same time ruthlessly pursuing illegal file sharing, but they don't seem inclined to take the risk....

So, there's a huge difference in the impact of used CDs as compared to P2P sharing - I'm sure the record companies would love to see both go, but the latter (rightly so) is perceived as a far more significant threat (which could be a potential opportunity... but they aren't looking at it that way).

Wulf

Click to expand...

All valid and good points. However I don't believe that the volume of the wrongdoing has any bearing on whether or not it is either wrong or okay. Either sharing is illegal or it is not. Used stores are in fact a form of sharing. I see alot of people posing the moral dilema on this subject. So should it be illegal or not? Just cause you may only do it once in a while doesn't lessen the moral burden. If you kill your brother or the entire family your still a killer.

Personally I think litigating the P2P'rs is just one huge public relations nightmare and further proof that the suits are evil and not very creative. The Artists they represent should put a stop to it immediatly.

If they continue to litigate P2P'rs I will boycott the big 5 labels and maybe all of them altogether. I'll resort to only buying stuff I can get directly thru the artist, like Aimee Mann, Todd Rundgren, Prince.... Maybe in fact that is the way it should be. I'd rather put a buck in the artists pocket than 18.99 in some suits.

You watch, some service in Indonesia will pop up and for a small fee will pack a CD full of mp3's and mail it to you.
As I have said in previous post's you either embrace technology or get run over by it.

It is easy to miss with all the press and soundbites the file sharing side of things is getting, but the RIAA is also seeking legislation to outlaw second hand music shops. They aren't making a lot of public noise about it like they are with the file sharing, but they are seeking to get rid of that "problem" as well. To us, second hand music shops are great, but to the RIAA they are stealing (as the RIAA isn't getting paid on that sale). They aren't making public noises about this effort, as it would be next to impossible for them to get public sympathy for this position (but it is indeed their stated position). Links can be dug up is needed...